United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision 

Matter of: Integrated Business Solutions, Inc. 

File: B-292239 

Date: July 9, 2003 

Keith Calhoun-Senghor, Esq., for the protester. 

David T. Truong, Esq., National Science Foundation, for the agency. 

Matthew T. Crosby and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

1. Agency properly rejected protester’s electronically submitted final proposal 

revision for facilities management services where solicitation did not authorize the 

electronic submission of proposals. 

2. Agency properly rejected protester’s initial proposal as unacceptable where 

protester failed to acknowledge solicitation amendment changing period of 

performance. 

DECISION 

Integrated Business Solutions, Inc. (IBS) protests the rejection of its proposal under 

solicitation No. CPO-0200006, issued by the National Science Foundation (NSF) for 

facilities management services. IBS contends that the agency improperly rejected its 

final proposal revision (FPR) as late. Additionally, IBS contends that, after rejecting 

the FPR, the agency improperly failed to consider IBS’s initial proposal. 

We deny the protest. 

IBS’s initial proposal was one of four that NSF included in the competitive range. 

NSF conducted discussions with the four competitive range offerors; discussions 

with IBS took place on March 4, 2003. On March 10, the agency issued a letter 

informing the four offerors that their final technical and cost/price submissions were 

due at 10:30 a.m. on March 13. Attached to the letter was a list of questions that each 

offeror might consider during preparation of its FPR. Also attached was an 

amendment that delayed the period of performance by 4-1/2 months. The letter 

instructed offerors that they could submit an FPR or confirm their initial proposal. 
Page 2 B-292239 

At 10:26 a.m. on March 13, NSF received an e-mail from an employee of Federal 

Management Systems, Inc. (FMS), a proposed subcontractor to IBS. The e-mail 

informed NSF that IBS’s FPR was en route, and requested a 1-hour extension to the 

time set for receipt of FPRs. At 10:30 a.m., NSF received an e-mail from IBS 

containing the technical proposal portion of the FPR. At 10:32 a.m., NSF received 

another e-mail with the cost portion of the FPR. At 11:11 a.m., NSF received a handdelivered FPR from IBS. According to the agency, the contracting officer received 

the FPR, but advised the deliverer that the submission was late. IBS asserts that the 

deliverer then informed the contracting officer that IBS had applied for an extension 

to the FPR deadline. Further, according to IBS, the deliverer orally confirmed IBS’s 

initial proposal and instructed NSF to consider IBS’s initial proposal in the event that 

NSF denied the extension. NSF disputes IBS’s account of these events. 

By letter dated March 20, NSF informed IBS that it had rejected IBS’s FPR as late, 

and that NSF would not consider IBS’s initial proposal. On March 28 IBS filed an 

agency-level protest with NSF. IBS argued that NSF improperly refused to consider 

IBS’s initial proposal, and that IBS’s FPR was timely because the RFP did not 

prohibit electronic submissions. On April 17, NSF denied IBS’s protest. On April 28, 

IBS filed this protest with our Office. 

Rejection of IBS’s FPR 

IBS first protests NSF’s rejection of its electronically submitted FPR, arguing that the 

RFP did not prohibit submission of offers by e-mail or other electronic methods. 

As a general matter, offerors may use any transmission method authorized by the 

solicitation. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15.208(a). Here, the RFP 

incorporated by reference FAR § 52.215-1, which provides in pertinent part as 

follows: “Unless other methods (e.g., electronic commerce or facsimile) are 

permitted in the solicitation, proposals and modifications to proposals shall be 

submitted in paper media . . . .” FAR § 52.215-1(c)(1). The solicitation nowhere 

authorized the use of electronic methods of submission, and in fact clearly 

contemplated submission in paper form. See RFP § A2 (listing the mailing address 

for offers and instructions for hand delivery). Accordingly, since the RFP did not 

authorize submission of offers by e-mail or other electronic methods, NSF properly 

rejected IBS’s electronically submitted FPR. See Environmental Control Div., Inc., 

B-255181, Feb. 16, 1994, 94-1 CPD ¶ 115 at 4 (facsimile best and final offer (BAFO) 

was properly rejected where RFP did not provide authorization for facsimile 

submissions); G.D. Searle & Co., B-247077, Apr. 30, 1992, 92-1 CPD ¶ 406 at 3. 

In any event, even if the RFP had authorized electronic submission of offers, the 

record shows that at the submission deadline--10:30 a.m., March 13--NSF’s server had 

received only the technical portion of IBS’s proposal. Two minutes after the 
Page 3 B-292239 

deadline, NSF’s server received the remaining cost portion.1 Proposals received after 

the exact time specified for receipt of proposals are late and will not be considered 

by the government unless the exceptions outlined in FAR § 15.208(b)(1) apply. 

PMTech, Inc., B-291082, Oct. 11, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 172 at 2. Nothing in the record 

suggests that those exceptions apply here.2

 Thus, NSF was under no obligation to 

consider the submission it received at 10:30 a.m. because that submission was 

missing a material portion. Cyber Digital, Inc., B-270107, Jan. 24, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 20 

at 4. 

IBS also maintains that its FPR may be considered under FAR § 15.208(b)(2), which 

provides that the government may accept late modifications to otherwise successful 

proposals when the terms are made more favorable to the government. IBS views its 

untimely FPR as a modification to its “otherwise successful” initial proposal. We 

disagree. The term “otherwise successful” means the government may accept a late 

modification from an offeror who is already in line for award. Environmental 

Control Div., Inc., supra, at 5. Here, IBS was not in line for award since, as discussed 

below, IBS’s initial proposal was not acceptable. 

IBS’s Initial Proposal 

As an alternate ground of protest, IBS disputes NSF’s rejection of its initial proposal. 

IBS contends that, despite its submission of an FPR, its initial proposal remains 

viable and must be considered by NSF. We disagree. 

As noted above, along with its March 10 letter requesting FPRs, NSF issued 

amendment No. 6 to the RFP that postponed the period of performance by 4-1/2 

months. Period of performance is a material solicitation requirement. Development 

Assocs., Inc., B-188416, Aug. 1, 1977, 77-2 CPD ¶ 64 at 3; see Logitek, Inc., B-238773, 

July 6, 1990, 90-2 CPD ¶ 16 at 4, recon. denied, B-238773.2, Nov. 19, 1990, 90-2 CPD ¶

401 (delivery terms are a material requirement in a solicitation). Because IBS did not 

confirm its initial proposal or otherwise acknowledge amendment No. 6, IBS was not 

bound to a material requirement of the solicitation and its initial proposal thus was 

unacceptable. S.C. Myers & Assocs., Inc., B-286297, Dec. 20, 2000, 2001 CPD ¶ 16 

at 4. 

 

1

 The record is unclear regarding whether the agency received the second e-mail at 

10:32 a.m. or 10:33:08 a.m. In either case, NSF received a material portion of IBS’s 

FPR after the deadline. 

2

 IBS asserts that NSF should accept its FPR under FAR § 15.208(b)(1)(ii), which 

provides an exception for late proposals when there is evidence establishing that the 

government had control of the submission at the time set for receipt of proposals. 

IBS offers no evidence to support this assertion. Instead, as noted above, the record 

indicates that NSF received a material portion of IBS’s FPR after the deadline. 
Page 4 B-292239 

IBS points out that while NSF’s amendment postpones the period of performance by 

4-1/2 months, it does not change the overall length of the performance period. IBS 

argues that its initial proposal commits to the same overall period of performance, 

and, therefore, should be considered acceptable. IBS’s argument ignores two points: 

first, that shifting the period of performance could affect how offerors structure their 

proposals, depending on their particular circumstances, and, second, that IBS has 

not committed to perform past the original completion date, as the agency requires. 

IBS asserts that it did confirm its initial proposal--once, orally, on March 13, and 

again, in writing, by its letter of March 21. NSF disputes the oral confirmation, and 

maintains that, in either case, the confirmations were untimely. IBS argues that its 

confirmations were not untimely because NSF’s request for FPR provided no 

deadline for confirmation. 

As explained above, by letter dated March 10 NSF gave offerors an opportunity to 

submit FPRs. The letter set March 13 at 10:30 a.m. as the deadline for submissions. 

In pertinent part, that letter provided as follows: “You are advised that any changes 

to your proposal that you wish to be considered by NSF must be identified within the 

text of your FPR. If no revisions are made to your original offer, confirm that the 

offer remains unchanged.” Read in context and as a whole, the only reasonable 

interpretation of NSF’s request for FPRs is that if an offeror chose to confirm rather 

than revise its proposal, the confirmation was due by the deadline for FPRs. See

Robotic Sys. Tech., B-271760, May 14, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 229 at 3 (only reasonable 

interpretation of amendment closing discussions and requesting BAFOs is that 

agency must receive offeror’s confirmation by deadline for BAFOs); Department of 

the Army--Recon., B-251527.3, Sept. 17, 1993, 93-2 CPD ¶ 178 at 3-4 (agency must 

receive BAFO or confirmation of initial proposal by deadline for BAFOs). IBS’s 

open-ended interpretation of NSF’s request for FPRs would lead to the illogical 

conclusion that different offerors had different deadlines. In other words, those 

offerors choosing to revise their proposals were required to do so by the deadline for 

FPR; but those offerors choosing to confirm their initial proposals were not subject 

to a deadline. 

Such an interpretation would clearly be inconsistent with the message conveyed by 

NSF’s letter. Namely, NSF had closed discussions; NSF set a deadline for receipt of 

revisions or confirmations; and, when the deadline expired, NSF would evaluate the 

pool of timely FPRs and confirmed initial proposals. This course of action was 

consistent with FAR § 15.307(b), requiring establishment of a common cut-off date 

for receipt of FRPs, and previous decisions by this Office. 

In any event, we think that IBS’s submission of an FPR effectively revoked its initial 

proposal. Submission of an FPR generally demonstrates an offeror’s intent to modify 

or replace its initial proposal, thus extinguishing an agency’s ability to accept the 

earlier offer. See Touchstone Textiles, Inc., B-272230.4, Sept. 5, 1996, 96-2 CPD ¶ 107 

at 2 (once offeror submits BAFO, award must be based on BAFO, not prior version 
Page 5 B-292239 

of proposal). Here, IBS asserts that it conditioned its submission of the FPR on the 

outcome of its request for a deadline extension. Therefore, in IBS’s view, its 

submission of an FPR does not show an intent to revoke or modify its initial 

proposal because IBS did not intend for the FPR to be submitted if NSF denied the 

extension. 

We find this argument unpersuasive. First, IBS fails to recognize that NSF’s request 

for FPRs did not give offerors the option of both submitting a FPR and confirming 

initial proposals. Second, IBS never attempted to withdraw the submission of its 

FPR. To the contrary, the record indicates that throughout this dispute IBS has 

urged NSF to consider its FPR as a timely, valid offer. Thus, the intent implicit in 

IBS’s express requests to NSF operates to revoke IBS’s initial proposal. Id.

IBS failed to follow NSF’s ground rules for continued participation in this 

procurement. IBS neither confirmed its initial proposal by the deadline, nor did IBS 

submit its FPR by the deadline. Because IBS’s FRP was late, and because IBS’s 

initial proposal failed to meet a material requirement, NSF did not have before it an 

acceptable IBS proposal to consider. 

The protest is denied. 

Anthony H. Gamboa 

General Counsel